The over-under for Joe showing up at UD again with a new sock is 5 days. :)

--------------"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "Global warming can't be real because it still gets cooler at night" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"

Although creating multiple socks is a pain in the ass, it may be having some unintended beneficial. All new commenters are put into moderation as a matter of course. And recently, they stay in moderation longer until Barry develops some comfort level. I suspect that this may also result in many ID supporters giving up.

Moderation is a virtue, after all! Especially if the new common tater might actually understand stuff and make use of that understanding whilst commentating. In which case that could leave the moderator with a hot potato to deal with.

AK called Trump a traitor, corrupt, and a man of no moral character, and KF went berzerk, and Ahmed pointed out that Trump has a history of legal trouble for refusing to rent to people who are of KF's ethnicity, and within about 24 hrs (after making 3-4 more comments pointing out that ID was worthless) AK's comments suddenly stopped being posted.

Honestly, why are you like this? You may have the worst ratio of confidence to knowledge I’ve ever run into.

If you look at the above-mentioned graph, the rate of CO2 growth is rather linear, and steep.

“linear”, you think that graph is linear? That’s funny because in 34 you asked me to explain the “exponential” rise in CO2. THe rise is of course exponential, just as we’d expect if the atmospheric rise in CO2 was a consequence of industry.

Quote

IOW, if the “cause” of excess CO2, and hence CO2 growth in concentration, is industry, then the ‘graph’ should track with the industrial production of CO2 over time.

You start with the disparaging title and your own mistake in reading the keeling curve.

Quote

It soon became apparent that seasonal oscillations were well-understood and your cocky tone and “teaching moment” added up to exactly nothing.

You then made a strange mathematical error in claiming a 4% increase in the rate of inflow in a tub (or atmosphere) will lead to a 4% increase in volume. Rather than admitting your error you’ve just stopped talking about this idea.

Next, you came up with some half-remembered bollocks about ocean acidification being a made up excuse of a lack of recent warming despite ever-rising CO2. This betrays your ignorance of ocean acidification, recent temperature records or elementary physics. When you finally produced a 15-year-old press release to substantiate you claim it was talking about how the rise in CO2 was slower than it would be if there was no ocean sink.

You then jumped on the Antarctic ice core data, making a great deal of the fact the recent increase in CO2 starts in the 1850s or so. You first described the rate of increase as “exponential”, but when you had to weasel your way out of mistake you claimed it was linear. Why you got yourself into that mess I don’t know. Perhaps you were unaware of the industrial revolution or that burning coal produces CO2? Whatever the source of your ignorance, it’s perfectly obvious that the rapid onset of CO2 accumulation exactly at the time that humans started emitting a lot of CO2 is evidence for the fact humans emitted the extra CO2 that is accumulating in the atmosphere.

Most amazingly of all: even after making all of these impressive displays of ignorance you still think you are right and that your cockamamie theory about recent CO2 increases coming from the ocean is viable despite the clear evidence that the oceans are gaining and not losing CO2.

What kind of person puts up a track record like the one above and doesnt’ even stop to think they might be clueless about this topic?

UD Editors: Mullers_ratchet is no longer with us.

--------------It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

Honestly, why are you like this? You may have the worst ratio of confidence to knowledge I’ve ever run into.

If you look at the above-mentioned graph, the rate of CO2 growth is rather linear, and steep.

“linear”, you think that graph is linear? That’s funny because in 34 you asked me to explain the “exponential” rise in CO2. THe rise is of course exponential, just as we’d expect if the atmospheric rise in CO2 was a consequence of industry.

Quote

IOW, if the “cause” of excess CO2, and hence CO2 growth in concentration, is industry, then the ‘graph’ should track with the industrial production of CO2 over time.

You start with the disparaging title and your own mistake in reading the keeling curve.

Quote

It soon became apparent that seasonal oscillations were well-understood and your cocky tone and “teaching moment” added up to exactly nothing.

You then made a strange mathematical error in claiming a 4% increase in the rate of inflow in a tub (or atmosphere) will lead to a 4% increase in volume. Rather than admitting your error you’ve just stopped talking about this idea.

Next, you came up with some half-remembered bollocks about ocean acidification being a made up excuse of a lack of recent warming despite ever-rising CO2. This betrays your ignorance of ocean acidification, recent temperature records or elementary physics. When you finally produced a 15-year-old press release to substantiate you claim it was talking about how the rise in CO2 was slower than it would be if there was no ocean sink.

You then jumped on the Antarctic ice core data, making a great deal of the fact the recent increase in CO2 starts in the 1850s or so. You first described the rate of increase as “exponential”, but when you had to weasel your way out of mistake you claimed it was linear. Why you got yourself into that mess I don’t know. Perhaps you were unaware of the industrial revolution or that burning coal produces CO2? Whatever the source of your ignorance, it’s perfectly obvious that the rapid onset of CO2 accumulation exactly at the time that humans started emitting a lot of CO2 is evidence for the fact humans emitted the extra CO2 that is accumulating in the atmosphere.

Most amazingly of all: even after making all of these impressive displays of ignorance you still think you are right and that your cockamamie theory about recent CO2 increases coming from the ocean is viable despite the clear evidence that the oceans are gaining and not losing CO2.

What kind of person puts up a track record like the one above and doesnt’ even stop to think they might be clueless about this topic?

Honestly, why are you like this? You may have the worst ratio of confidence to knowledge I’ve ever run into.

If you look at the above-mentioned graph, the rate of CO2 growth is rather linear, and steep.

“linear”, you think that graph is linear? That’s funny because in 34 you asked me to explain the “exponential” rise in CO2. THe rise is of course exponential, just as we’d expect if the atmospheric rise in CO2 was a consequence of industry.

Quote

IOW, if the “cause” of excess CO2, and hence CO2 growth in concentration, is industry, then the ‘graph’ should track with the industrial production of CO2 over time.

You start with the disparaging title and your own mistake in reading the keeling curve.

Quote

It soon became apparent that seasonal oscillations were well-understood and your cocky tone and “teaching moment” added up to exactly nothing.

You then made a strange mathematical error in claiming a 4% increase in the rate of inflow in a tub (or atmosphere) will lead to a 4% increase in volume. Rather than admitting your error you’ve just stopped talking about this idea.

Next, you came up with some half-remembered bollocks about ocean acidification being a made up excuse of a lack of recent warming despite ever-rising CO2. This betrays your ignorance of ocean acidification, recent temperature records or elementary physics. When you finally produced a 15-year-old press release to substantiate you claim it was talking about how the rise in CO2 was slower than it would be if there was no ocean sink.

You then jumped on the Antarctic ice core data, making a great deal of the fact the recent increase in CO2 starts in the 1850s or so. You first described the rate of increase as “exponential”, but when you had to weasel your way out of mistake you claimed it was linear. Why you got yourself into that mess I don’t know. Perhaps you were unaware of the industrial revolution or that burning coal produces CO2? Whatever the source of your ignorance, it’s perfectly obvious that the rapid onset of CO2 accumulation exactly at the time that humans started emitting a lot of CO2 is evidence for the fact humans emitted the extra CO2 that is accumulating in the atmosphere.

Most amazingly of all: even after making all of these impressive displays of ignorance you still think you are right and that your cockamamie theory about recent CO2 increases coming from the ocean is viable despite the clear evidence that the oceans are gaining and not losing CO2.

What kind of person puts up a track record like the one above and doesnt’ even stop to think they might be clueless about this topic?

Not so much a case of art imitating life but an artless low life simulating his own version of hell. Barryambulance chaser will eventually die and no one will give a fuck even pork fat smelling Dembski. Lets hope they bury Assington 20 feet down because deep down he's a nice guy.